TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Lorri_D wrote: »

OK to say pay...

We're not saying pay. We're saying that if you want to watch TV broadcasts (whether +1 or otherwise) you need a licence.

Sniggings has now answered the underlying question, which is: how can I enjoy watching my TV programmes without needing a Licence? This information appears in various forms many, many times in this thread, as well as on the TV Licensing website.

preciouscargo627

Can we confirm if this information is correct:

Google "Read This And Never Pay Your TV Licence Fee Again"
I'm not allowed to post the link but by searching that you will find the recent article of the same name.

It may already be on the forum but im surprised it isn't mentioned in the main site top 20 tips!?!

Basically this indicates that you can write to BBC Licensing and "withdraw" property access...

"BBC have an ‘implied right of access’ to your property. This basically means that they have the right to enter your home in order to check if you have a TV – unless you remove this right".

Anyone know anything about this? Or have done it?

Thanks guys x

preciouscargo627

What if you watch something on a +1 channel? Technically the tv on there is not "live" as its broadcast behind the parent channel...

ITV
ITV+1 and so on...

Why can you watch catch up on the bbc Iplayer approx an hr after the live broadcast and thats ok but cant watch + channels? If thats the case...

Thoughts?

sniggings

preciouscargo627 wrote: »

What if you watch something on a +1 channel? Technically the tv on there is not "live" as its broadcast behind the parent channel...

ITV
ITV+1 and so on...

Why can you watch catch up on the bbc Iplayer approx an hr after the live broadcast and thats ok but cant watch + channels? If thats the case...

Thoughts?

Live in this sense means as and when the signal is sent out to your TV, so ITV+1 would still need a licence as the show maybe an hour behind BUT the signal for you to receive that show on your TV is being sent out "live".

Catchup TV is different as it's a recording of the show, so no signal is needed, just to confuse you more, you can't self record as you would need to have the signal to record which would need a licence. So using the catchup service means we can watch those without us having a licence as the live signal never came to our house.

Cornucopia

The whole "live" broadcasts thing is a little bit unhelpful. Not sure whether it's another bit of TVL obfuscation.

If you receive your TV programmes via an aerial, satellite dish or on Cable TV, you always need a licence.

If you receive your TV programmes via the Internet (i.e. over broadband) then you ONLY need a licence if you are watching something as it is being broadcast via terrestrial, cable or satellite in the UK & Channel Islands.

Cornucopia

preciouscargo627 wrote: »

Can we confirm if this information is correct:

Google "Read This And Never Pay Your TV Licence Fee Again"
I'm not allowed to post the link but by searching that you will find the recent article of the same name.

Here is the link: http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/read-this-and-never-pay-your-tv-licence-fee-again/

Basically this indicates that you can write to BBC Licensing and "withdraw" property access...

Yes, this is broadly true and accurate. The method is known in TVL-savvy circles as WOIRA - Withdrawal of the Implied Right of Access.

If you exercise this right, then TVL are banned from approaching your door, stepping onto your property (path/garden) or entering your home, unless they have a Search Warrant. Technically they are banned forever, until you say otherwise, but as the number of WOIRAs has increased they have imposed a unilateral limit of 2 years. There's no real legal justification for that, and it's probably only a matter of time before someone sues them for Civil Trespass.

The reason why some groups do not advocate it is because of the Search Warrant aspect. However, even if WOIRA promoted Search Warrants (and there is some evidence to suggest they might) the numbers are with the citizens - well over 10000 WOIRAs to a handful of Search Warrants.

The other option is to explicitly link WOIRA with your rights to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. By doing this, you prevent TVL from using your WOIRA in a Search Warrant application, even if they wanted to.

So, it becomes a choice: use a standard WOIRA and be part of a large crowd - but have the possible search warrant vulnerability, use an Article 8 WOIRA and be protected but alone, or just ignore them and don't use either.

You can also couple WOIRA to a scale of charges, as in the example. Obviously a breach of one's human rights is significant, so you'd want to state a figure with several noughts on it... the actual legal action would be a suit for civil trespass in the Small Claims Procedure of the County Court.

phoenix_w

Cornucopia wrote: »

So, it becomes a choice: use a standard WOIRA and be part of a large crowd - but have the possible search warrant vulnerability, use an Article 8 WOIRA and be protected but alone, or just ignore them and don't use either.

I suspect those who submit a WOIRA end up on a "list of cranks" at Capita, and judging by some of the online posts about it - with good reason.

Why bother to go to such lengths? If you don't watch live TV put their letters in the recycling bin, tell them to sod off if they call, and have a good laugh at their expense in the stupidly slim chance that the issue a warrant to check that your aerial isn't connected. I highly doubt any court is going to reward you with thousands of pounds should a canvasser from TVL pop around your house, even if you sent them a WOIRA + Section 8 + a copy of the Bill of Rights and state that you will charge them 5 trillion pounds and interest for invading your right to privacy.

If you do watch live TV then pay up and write to your MP and express your outrage that you only ever watched BBC 1 once in 1976 and that you have had nightmares ever since.

JustTheOnce_2

Hello,

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help.

My mother moved into a sheltered accommodation about 8 months ago. The family home will be sold in some time ( various things need attending to before that can happen ). Currently it remains, semi-occupied as I stay over a couple of nights a week when more convenient. The council tax, utilities bills and anything else to do with the property remain in my mothers name, and she was in contact with all relevant parties to send any correspondence, bills, etcetera to her new address. The property has no occupants on the electoral register.

She had Freeview. She took the Freeview Box with her. The Freeview dish is still attached to the property. A old TV unit with inbuilt DVD and VHS remains in the property. The dish and the TV are not connected, but of course, in the Digital age, it would require a box of some sort. The TV therefore cannot show a live TV picture. Live TV was presumably last watched the day before she moved. The TV does however have an inbuilt DVD and VCR.

The property receives very litte post, bar the odd bit of junk mail, but I do check everything as of course something important might be amongst it. A letter addressed to a person not and never known at the address ( the property was the family home for over 40 years, nobody else lived there ) was sent to family home address ( opened in error ) stating something about a TV licence and a Direct Debit, referred to previous correspondence and that the named person did not respond. To be honest, I am a bit suspicious and frankly, I though it was a " fishing " letter.

I phoned the number on the letter, to say the person on the letter with the Licence Number was not known at the address and so they will need to amend their records. I am not a fan of the way the organisation operate a "guilty until proven innocent policy" so when they started asking " who are you ", " do you own the property ", which I thought was completely irrelevant, I said it was irrelevant who I was,, I was phoning to tell them that they had the wrong person at the wrong address. The CSA said if I did not answer their questions, they could not do anything about it. ( Although, I imagine I have now put the property on some sort of "hit list" ).

I have on occasion watched the odd DVD, but absolutely, utterly no TV has been watched since the moment my mother moved out taking her Freeview box with her, as the TV is not connected to any ariel or dish or any kind.

Should I be concerned ?

Should I just throw away the telly ?

I guess I could just cut the cable coming down the side of the house which would clearly show that the dish is not attached to any equipment inside the house ?

Thanks Guys !

Cornucopia

phoenix_w wrote: »

I suspect those who submit a WOIRA end up on a "list of cranks" at Capita, and judging by some of the online posts about it - with good reason.

I'm sure that's true. But I object to the concept that someone exercising their legitimate right to privacy in their own home is a "crank". It is that kind of lacklustre thinking that has got the BBC into this mess in the first place.

Why bother to go to such lengths?

Some people want the certainty of a definitive position rather than waiting for the knock that may never come. There are vulnerable people out there, as well as those with disabilities. Also, it's less easy for larger households to face down TVL with a steely eye, and any adult in a household can be liable for prosecution.

I highly doubt any court is going to reward you with thousands of pounds should a canvasser from TVL pop around your house, even if you sent them a WOIRA + Section 8 + a copy of the Bill of Rights and state that you will charge them 5 trillion pounds and interest for invading your right to privacy.

I generally suggest a figure of £2000 for breach of WOIRA. It's up to the Court to determine a reasonable settlement based upon that as a starting point. Even if the award was notional (£100?), a successful action can be used as the basis for obtaining an injunction, which obviously escalates things.

At the end of the day, there has to be a legal remedy to TVL's shenanigans, because it all comes back to Article 8.2 of the much maligned ECHR/HRA.

The law generally likes things to be clear, and it is a very simple question: can I refuse TVL entry without prejudice?

... BBC 1 once in 1976 and that you have had nightmares ever since.

Doctor Who used to do that to people.

cw18

JustTheOnce wrote: »

I have on occasion watched the odd DVD, but absolutely, utterly no TV has been watched since the moment my mother moved out taking her Freeview box with her, as the TV is not connected to any ariel or dish or any kind.

Should I be concerned ?

Should I just throw away the telly ?

The set up (as you describe it) is perfectly legal without a TV licence. I have 3 TVs in my house and no licence - 2 are connected to Freeview boxes with built in hard disks (1 to watch really, really old stuff recorded onto the disk when I had a licence, the other because it's also a DVD player), the third is used as a computer/xBox monitor and for streaming shows from the likes of Netflix. There are no aerial cables connected to any of the appliances, so I can't watch live TV via the (disabled) aerial in the attic space.

There is absolutely no need for you to discard the TV, and I'd advise against cutting the cable as propective purchasers of the property won't be happy at the thought of having to repair/replace at their cost.

I completed the form on the TVL website to inform them I don't require a licence, and have had no hassle at all from them - just an enquiry as to whether I now needed a licence when they were informed I bought a new TV (2 bought since cancelling, but this shouldn't happen again due to no longer needing to complete a form when you buy), and again 2 years after I last told them I didn't need (which they do as routine).